| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Bagrat Skalski
Poseidaon
130
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 09:11:00 -
[1] - Quote
I had an idea.
- Players paying for CONCORD protection in high sec. - Recurring subscription. - CONCORD protection only available in empire space (hisec). - Fees based on amount of skill points - For new players 1 month free protection. - Players whose security status is lower then -4 are not viable to get CONCORD protection - subscriptions halted. - New office and service in concord stations - CONCORD bearou: Security assurance service
CONCORD will work as always, but only when player have ISK to pay monthly recurring fee.
Player can leave the service in any moment.
ISK sink achieved. Inside mining barge, true story |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
13761
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 09:22:00 -
[2] - Quote
Bad idea.
This will favour those with ISK and means many in high sec will be without Concord. Concord may not be liked by many, but it's a necessary in high sec.
As far as being an ISK sink is concerned, meh.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |

Bagrat Skalski
Poseidaon
130
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 09:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Bad idea.
This will favour those with ISK and means many in high sec will be without Concord. Concord may not be liked by many, but it's a necessary in high sec.
As far as being an ISK sink is concerned, meh.
Meh? Why meh? ISKs are flowing into system at a higer rate than before, more active players. And since when you can get service like CONCORD in real life for free? Where is the point to have CONCORD in such a way it is today? It would add realism, and it will not favour those with ISK, it wil be something for something, When you are in Hi sec and you have protection it would make you a living and prospering entity, so you will have ISK for CONCORD, those with low security status are criminals, so they would be like outsiders into low sec - place where even CONCORD agents aren't safe, and nullsec - those who want to execute their law by themselves. Inside mining barge, true story |

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
1846
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 09:59:00 -
[4] - Quote
You are aware that most null and low-sec players have industrial, hauling, and trading alts in high-sec... right? And that many of them would be able to pay for this service while younger, newer players would not... right? And with the ability to evade war decs and hide in NPC corps being as easy as it is... you have, with this idea, effectively made those players immune to any sort of ship on ship violence.
No one should ever be immune to ship on ship violence. Not even rich players. Not even in high-sec.
Not supported. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |

Bagrat Skalski
Poseidaon
130
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 10:06:00 -
[5] - Quote
Quote:And that many of them would be able to pay for this service while younger, newer players would not
Wrong, new players have small amount of skill points, so they will pay small fees. 1 million for every 500 000 SP monthly, fair enough i think. Inside mining barge, true story |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
13761
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 10:07:00 -
[6] - Quote
Meh because it's a poor idea to create a sink, but overlooks the faucets that are the cause.
The point of Concord the way it is today, is to place fixed and known consequences on actions in high sec. That is a necessary for high sec, in order to keep it high sec. If you like this idea, then move to low where there is no Concord at all.
Yes it does favour the rich and it's disingenuous to say otherwise. Because you either pay, or get let people get a free ride off you.
But what's stopping people from taking action now? This idea doesn't help in that regard, it simply removes the consequences when people attack those who haven't paid.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |

Bagrat Skalski
Poseidaon
130
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 10:12:00 -
[7] - Quote
Quote:This idea doesn't help in that regard, it simply removes the consequences when people attack those who haven't paid.
Yes, it would add more consensual pvp to high sec, and people who are willing to not pay, well, they are off to themselves, and their corporations. Those who want to stay safe, they will pay.
Quote:Meh because it's a poor idea to create a sink, but overlooks the faucets that are the cause.
There are always faucets! You have to get ISK from somewhere. So there must be sinks too. Inside mining barge, true story |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
13761
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 10:38:00 -
[8] - Quote
Bagrat Skalski wrote:Yes, it would add more consensual pvp to high sec, and people who are willing to not pay, well, they are off to themselves, and their corporations. Those who want to stay safe, they will pay. It add more none consensual PvP for the sole purpose of creating an ISK sink. It doesn't add anything else.
Bagrat Skalski wrote:So if you don't want to pay for safety you don't belong to hi sec, where people have to work hard for their safety. People don't work hard for it now, this change will not help that in any way. Like I said, what's stopping you from taking action now? Beating people with this stick, won't change anything for the better.
Bagrat Skalski wrote:There are always faucets! You have to get ISK from somewhere. So there must be sinks too. This feature will add it. It's not a good idea for the reasons outlined. You're breaking another mechanic, in order to create this sink. That makes it all the way wrong from the start.
Bagrat Skalski wrote:CONCORD will protect only agains unlawful deeds against someone protected, only in high sec as it is now, but for fee. I made it clear now i think. When someone protected by CONCORD will make criminal act, they will be treated like a criminal, like today. Concord do not protect and will not protect with this idea. They punish. You're asking for that punishment to be based on whether you pay or not. That means it favours the rich and removes consequences. Concord punishment should not be based on ISK.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |

Bagrat Skalski
Poseidaon
130
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 10:44:00 -
[9] - Quote
Quote:Concord punishment should not be based on ISK.
Everything should be based on ISK. Like in real life. No one will protect you agains the hordes of criminals, if you don't even want to be protected, and pay for the CONCORD to have your ass saved by using force against someone who want to destroy your ship.
You may think about it now: "carebear heaven"... for a price. Inside mining barge, true story |

Schmata Bastanold
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
560
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 10:53:00 -
[10] - Quote
So you propose taking out suicide from suicide ganking? No subscription means no CONCORD spawning at belt to avenge you, right?
Good luck with that.
Miners demand banning of bumpers because they don't wanna pay 10 mil fee and you wanna to make them happy by CONCORD extortion racket? Brilliant.
Infact that would be loltastic because I am sure 50% of usual gank targets could be exploded risk free. I am not my skills but... http://eveboard.com/pilot/Schmata_Bastanold |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
13761
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 10:57:00 -
[11] - Quote
Bagrat Skalski wrote:Quote:Concord punishment should not be based on ISK. Everything should be based on ISK. Like in real life. No one will protect you agains the hordes of criminals, if you don't even want to be protected, and pay for the CONCORD to have your ass saved by using force against someone who want to destroy your ship. You may think about it now: "carebear heaven"... for a price. For free you can get torpedo to the bridge. They already included a 11% tax rate to cover lore. But this isn't real life and it shouldn't be based on it. It's sole purpose is to enable high sec, to be high sec.
But again, Concord does not protect. Not now, not with this change. They punish.
Criminal acts are criminal acts and the punishment of said acts, should not be decided upon by ISK in high sec.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |

Bagrat Skalski
Poseidaon
130
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 10:59:00 -
[12] - Quote
Schmata Bastanold wrote:So you propose taking out suicide from suicide ganking? No subscription means no CONCORD spawning at belt to avenge you, right?
Good luck with that.
Miners demand banning of bumpers because they don't wanna pay 10 mil fee and you wanna to make them happy by CONCORD extortion racket? Brilliant.
Infact that would be loltastic because I am sure 50% of usual gank targets could be exploded risk free.
Whole point is to add consequences to live in High sec, a financial stress that is made for living in controlled, relatively safe area.
They also protect by punishing in time. And this alone is worth of paying.
Quote:Criminal acts are criminal acts and the punishment of said acts, should not be decided upon by ISK in high sec.
Criminal act against unruly, not submissive or conforming to rule, should not be a criminal act. Inside mining barge, true story |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
13766
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 11:19:00 -
[13] - Quote
Bagrat Skalski wrote:Whole point is to add consequences to live in High sec, a financial stress that is made for living in controlled, relatively safe area. Which favours the rich and is bad for that fact alone.
Bagrat Skalski wrote:They also protect by punishing in time. And this alone is worth of paying. No, they still only punish.
The protection is derived from the fact that they do punish and that this is a constant.. You're asking for that punishment to be reliant upon ISK. This will have the negative effect of making punishment a none constant. Therefore making high sec risker for all and giving less of this derived protection.
Bagrat Skalski wrote:Criminal act against unruly, not submissive or conforming to rule, should not be a criminal act. The rule should be, pay for protection. Your idea ignores rules, in favour of ISK.
Bagrat Skalski wrote:My idea wil enable more consequences for living in highsec. Simple as that. No it removes consequences, in favour of creating a poor ISK sink.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |

Bagrat Skalski
Poseidaon
130
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 11:31:00 -
[14] - Quote
Quote:This will have the negative effect of making punishment a none constant. Therefore making high sec risker for all and giving less of this derived protection. When you pay, you get constant protection. Consequence. You give **** about it? Whole world awaits.
Quote:No it removes consequences, in favour of creating a poor ISK sink. There is only one rule, you have to pay for everything. It makes rule of consequence dominant. And ISK sink.
Fixed Tax should be nothing but another one consequence for using stations for industry jobs, and empire space for POSes. Inside mining barge, true story |

Schmata Bastanold
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
561
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 11:35:00 -
[15] - Quote
Bagrat Skalski wrote: Whole point is to add consequences to living in High sec, a financial stress that is made for living in controlled, relatively safe area.
My idea wil enable more consequences for living in highsec. Simple as that.
Financial stress is irrelevant to rich and would harm poor or just starting players.
You wanna risk free ganking - declare war and blap them to your heart's content.
Your proposal is based on wrong assumption that NPC should be a side in pvp conflicts. You could also propose that NPC traders should undercut player's market orders unless bribed not to do that.
Go play X3 if you wanna meaningful NPCs, what Eve needs is more player interactions and immersion not less. I am not my skills but... http://eveboard.com/pilot/Schmata_Bastanold |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
13766
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 11:37:00 -
[16] - Quote
Bagrat Skalski wrote:When you pay, you get constant protection. Consequence. You give **** about it? Whole world awaits. I see you missed the point. Your idea has a negative affect against everyone, not just those who have paid.
Bagrat Skalski wrote:There is only one rule, you have to pay for everything. It makes rule of consequence dominant. And ISK sink.
Fixed Tax should be nothing but another one consequence for using stations for industry jobs, and empire space for POSes. Paying ISK is not a consequence, it's a poor side step mechanic that favours the rich.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |

Bagrat Skalski
Poseidaon
130
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 11:41:00 -
[17] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Bagrat Skalski wrote:When you pay, you get constant protection. Consequence. You give **** about it? Whole world awaits. I see you missed the point. Your idea has a negative affect against everyone, not just those who have paid. Bagrat Skalski wrote:There is only one rule, you have to pay for everything. It makes rule of consequence dominant. And ISK sink.
Fixed Tax should be nothing but another one consequence for using stations for industry jobs, and empire space for POSes. Paying ISK is not a consequence, it's a poor side step mechanic that favours the rich.
Favors the rich? You can be rich and live in null, look at those alliances. You think they have no ISK? And they don't have concord too.
Inside mining barge, true story |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
13766
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 11:46:00 -
[18] - Quote
Bagrat Skalski wrote:Favors the rich? You can be rich and live in null, look at those alliances. You think they have no ISK? And they don't have concord too.
Yes, favours the rich. They have money and don't care about a few mil, but would still be affected by this change.
What relevance does null and it's rich alliances have?
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |

Bagrat Skalski
Poseidaon
130
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 11:50:00 -
[19] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Bagrat Skalski wrote:Favors the rich? You can be rich and live in null, look at those alliances. You think they have no ISK? And they don't have concord too.
Yes, favours the rich. They have money and don't care about a few mil, but would still be affected by this change.
I see you don't understand, new players could make few mil too in a month. And there is nothing what stops them from leaving those few milions in CONCORD hands. Inside mining barge, true story |

Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
250
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 11:50:00 -
[20] - Quote
I would support this idea under two conditions:
1: The subscription fee should not be excessive. No one want to pay stupid amounts just to have a little security. That security being already balanced by low income potential.
2: The fee should only apply to those with negative security status. Law abiding citizens should not have to pay extra to recieve the same protection afforded to those who are not. MODULAR DRONES
MORE ORE SHIPS |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
13766
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 11:54:00 -
[21] - Quote
Bagrat Skalski wrote:Mag's wrote:Bagrat Skalski wrote:Favors the rich? You can be rich and live in null, look at those alliances. You think they have no ISK? And they don't have concord too.
Yes, favours the rich. They have money and don't care about a few mil, but would still be affected by this change. I see you don't understand, new players could make few mil too in a month. And there is nothing what stops them from leaving those few milions in CONCORD hands. I don't understand what exactly? That null sec and it's rich alliances are irrelevant or that this still favours the rich?
You've just proved my point, by stating that new players would need to hand over the few mill they made.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |

Bagrat Skalski
Poseidaon
130
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 12:00:00 -
[22] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote:I would support this idea under two conditions:
1: The subscription fee should not be excessive. No one want to pay stupid amounts just to have a little security. That security being already balanced by low income potential.
2: The fee should only apply to those with negative security status. Law abiding citizens should not have to pay extra to recieve the same protection afforded to those who are not.
As for 1 i think the same, for the 2, i think negative, low security status should be an indicator for the unruly character making mess, so CONCORD as low abiding, but cynic organization, should prefer to kick him in the butt.
Quote: You've just proved my point, by stating that new players would need to hand over the few mill they made.
New players start in safe spot, with free protection, then after month they can decide, pay small fee as a law abiding and ready to serve law with your wallet citizen or get lost. Inside mining barge, true story |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
13766
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 12:57:00 -
[23] - Quote
Bagrat Skalski wrote:Quote: You've just proved my point, by stating that new players would need to hand over the few mill they made.
New players start in safe spot, with free protection, then after month they can decide, pay small fee as a law abiding and ready to serve law with your wallet citizen or get lost. As it stands now. Player A has 4 Million and a fitted, insured ship. He goes out to run a mission and gets suicide ganked. Consequences are as follows: 1. He has an insurance payout, plus his 4 million ISK to help replace his stuff. 2. The suicide ganker loses his ship and gets a security hit.
Under this change. Player A has 4 Million and a fitted, insured ship. He pays 4 million to Concord and goes out to run a mission. He gets suicide ganked. Consequences are as follows: 1. He has an insurance payout, but doesn't have 4 million to help replace his stuff. 2. The suicide ganker loses his ship and gets a security hit.
OR
Player A has 4 Million and a fitted, insured ship. He doesn't pay concord and goes out to run a mission. He gets suicide ganked. Consequences are as follows: 1. He has an insurance payout, plus 4 million ISK to help replace his stuff. 2. The suicide ganker keeps his ship and doesn't get a security hit.
So it's either get screwed over by handing over your ISK, or keep the ISK and remove all current consequences.
And what for? To create an poor ISK sink? Or is this simply a bad way of turning high sec, into some mix of null and low?
I wouldn't EVER use this feature, but would love the no consequence situation you've given me. But hey, they didn't pay. Amirite?
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |

Bagrat Skalski
Poseidaon
130
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 13:09:00 -
[24] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Bagrat Skalski wrote:Quote: You've just proved my point, by stating that new players would need to hand over the few mill they made.
New players start in safe spot, with free protection, then after month they can decide, pay small fee as a law abiding and ready to serve law with your wallet citizen or get lost. As it stands now.Player A has 4 Million and a fitted, insured ship. He goes out to run a mission and gets suicide ganked. Consequences are as follows: 1. He has an insurance payout, plus his 4 million ISK to help replace his stuff. 2. The suicide ganker loses his ship and gets a security hit. Under this change.Player A has 4 Million and a fitted, insured ship. He pays 4 million to Concord and goes out to run a mission. He gets suicide ganked. Consequences are as follows: 1. He has an insurance payout, but doesn't have 4 million to help replace his stuff. 2. The suicide ganker loses his ship and gets a security hit. ORPlayer A has 4 Million and a fitted, insured ship. He doesn't pay concord and goes out to run a mission. He gets suicide ganked. Consequences are as follows: 1. He has an insurance payout, plus 4 million ISK to help replace his stuff. 2. The suicide ganker keeps his ship and doesn't get a security hit. So it's either get screwed over by handing over your ISK, or keep the ISK and remove all current consequences. And what for? To create an poor ISK sink? Or is this simply a bad way of turning high sec, into some mix of null and low? I wouldn't EVER use this feature, but would love the no consequence situation you've given me. But hey, they didn't pay. Amirite?
The suicide ganker keeps his ship and doesn't get a security hit? Suicide ganker? Thats Just a non consensual PVP scenario in this point. 
Yes, you can have choice in highsec that way. Choice to make yourself a victim or not. That's fully understandable, upholding to EVE reputation game mechanism. Inside mining barge, true story |

Yolo
Mostly Harmless Mining Corp Peregrine Nation
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 14:07:00 -
[25] - Quote
Bagrat Skalski wrote:Quote:And that many of them would be able to pay for this service while younger, newer players would not Wrong, new players have small amount of skill points, so they will pay small fees. 1 million for every 500 000 SP monthly, fair enough i think. Fee calculated at recurring rate monthly also. So I should pay 85 mil Isk a month above the already 550 mil Isk a month I pay for the PLEX.
-1 NOT SUPPORTED. |

Zol Interbottom
Nanotrasen Inc
141
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 14:21:00 -
[26] - Quote
As someone who can barely afford the insurance on his ship, let alone anything else, this is a horrible idea, not everyone has moongoo infinite cash or likes to mine for days on end
I barely make 1mil an hour while I grind up to actual missions worth a damn, if I lose my ship right now im not even going to bother, it's over, GG, all of my money ever gone, 2 months of grinding lost, the only way I can even run the missions I'm doing is in ships I can't afford, are you saying removing the on thing that deters having my **** destroyed forever is the threat of CONCORD
Glad you enjoy being space rich, think about the space poor for a change |

AyayaPanda
15 Minute Outliers Novus Dominatum
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 15:19:00 -
[27] - Quote
Great idea, new pilots in hs sacrifice their 1st born to concord for peace. And instead of corp/alliance billing, every TCU gonna automaticlly tax the **** out of nell sec fella.
Noone is space rich anymore, let's fight in free noob ships. |

Bagrat Skalski
Poseidaon
130
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 15:21:00 -
[28] - Quote
Oh well, looks like I was mad thinking someone will approve of this Idea in such form.  Inside mining barge, true story |

Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Relativity Alliance
1135
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 15:50:00 -
[29] - Quote
Approve?
Sure.... but under these conditions:
1. Name changed from Concord to Vengeance Inc. Concord is not involved, these are mercenaries.
2. High Sec? No no no.... Strictly low sec. And no, not in null sec at all.
3. No local chat pilot roster. The idea your corp might purchase a contract at the last minute when they spot a neut entering the system is an exploit, like buying flood insurance during a hurricane warning. You need to guess that you will need it. When a hostile pilot is already warping to you it's too late. Also, this deterrent level mechanic in addition to local chat's highly effective warnings are simply too OP together.
Contracts not sold monthly. Contracts sold per number of events responded to, with possible bulk discounts. Prepay only.
And by events, they don't care whether it's a fleet of super carriers, or a single noob ship deliberately wasting your ISK since they know you bought the contract. Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |

Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
2223
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 15:56:00 -
[30] - Quote
Why should I pay for something.... when I already get it for free.....
-1 Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk! |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |